IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	25 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015134
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests a change of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was separated for receiving two Article 15s and the misconduct outlined in the non-judicial punishment actions does not indicate a pattern of misconduct.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			15 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				20 December 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 3-159th Attach Reconnaissance 
Battalion, Camp Buehring, Kuwait
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		28 January 2010/5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 10 months, 23 days
h. Total Service:				4 years, 9 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, 080219-080304, NA
RA, 080305-121219, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:					98
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA, Germany
p. Combat Service:				Afghanistan, (090407-100608); 
   Kuwait (120505-121018)
q. Decorations/Awards:			JSCM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-ARWHD,
GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 2008, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks.  She reenlisted on 28 January 2010, for a period of 5 years and was 26 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate.  She served in Germany and Afghanistan.  She earned a Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) and an Army Achievement Medal (AAM).  She completed a total of 4 years, 9 months, and 16 days of active duty service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Ansbach, Germany.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 17 October 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for: being drunk and disorderly (120713); striking an NCO, and resisting detention.  In addition, she was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and failing to report to physical training (110302). 

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 18 October 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf.  The applicant provided a copy of a statement, dated 19 October 2012, states, in effect, she accepted full responsibility for her actions for which she was being discharged.  She stated she had already been punished for the same issues and moved past them.  She stated she had been deployed to Kuwait since 5 May 2012, and the incident for which she received the Article 15 occurred on 7 April 2012, and the incident for which she received the CG Article 15 occurred in 2010.  She contended she had not been in any trouble since imposition of the non-judicial punishment.  She asked the separation authority to look at her overall service record when making his decision, to include her 13-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2009.  She further stated, she believed she should be discharged under honorable conditions for the hard work and dedication she put into the Army.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 20 November 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 20 December 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3.  

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 2 March 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (110112) and disobeying a lawful order from a NCO (091129).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $150 pay per month for one month (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 April 2011, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG).

2.  Article 15, dated 13 July 2012, for unlawfully striking SSG J on the face with her open hand (120407), unlawfully striking CPL M on the leg with her foot (120407), wrongfully using provoking words, being drunk and disorderly (120407), disobeying a lawful order (120407) and resisting apprehension by an armed forces policeman (120407).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $835 per month for two months, 30 days of restriction, and an oral reprimand (FG). 

3.  Multiple counseling statements dated between 24 September 2010 and 28
August 2012 documenting a combination of misconduct in the form of drunk and
disorderly conduct, failing to obey orders, disrespect to an NCO,
Insubordinate conduct, failing to report and failing to follow instructions
as well as monthly/bi-monthly performance counseling statements addressing specific aspects of duty performance.

      
4.  A RTM Appointment Notice, dated 28 December 2010, reflects the applicant was screened and assessed on 6 December 2010, and recommended to attend the Army’s Drug and Alcohol Prevention Training (ADAPT) and enrollment in ASAP, due to a subsequent alcohol related incident. 

5.  An MP Report dated 29 June 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for assault consummated by battery (on post), assault on a military law enforcement officer while in the performance of his duties (on post), provoking speech/gestures (on post), drunk and disorderly conduct (on post), and resisting apprehension (on post).

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 12 September 2013, a DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, dated 19 October 2012, eight letters of support, dated between 
7 July 2012 and 20 October 2012. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of her application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and nine negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant claims the offenses that caused her discharge did not indicate a pattern of misconduct.  However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.  

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review       Date:  25 April 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:					NA

















Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130015134



Page 3 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1